I understand there are moderators to approve name changes. However, I wonder if the database would be more valid, useful, whatever, if there was a field to list exactly what source was used to propose and validate a name or name change as well as the entry date : e.g. ITIS (2012), The Plant List (2011), TROPICOS, Kew. Everyone would then know the source and the reference date.

That's true but that information would only really be of benefit to the moderators, as far as I can see, and I think we all generally trust each other enough to expect that the person submitting the information is doing their research.

I could see that once we have grown enough that we have people submitting proposals who we don't even know, that this information would be more important and needed. I do definitely expect that this system will evolve as the contributor number increases.

I was thinking that the reference would be incorporated into the main entry, along with any synonyms, so everyone could see it.

I've developed a local relational database that also has general info, as well as the ability to track individual plant performance. I've spent a lot of time verifying botanical names and have both common names and synonyms listed so a user can query and get a hit no matter how they enter a plant name. I liked my idea so much that I'm going back and updating my database (only 1500 plants w/o veggies yet) to include reference source and date

And actually you shouldn't know me! I've only been a member for 2-3 days. But I appreciate the trust.

I'm certainly willing to add a field where one could enter in the reference for the name. That's the easy part, though. Getting and putting those references in for over half a million plants is the real challenge.

Even if the reference/date started with contributors who are recommending name changes, that's a start. Then, as users browse through the database, they could easily update a plant's reference/date/synonyms. I suspect that collectors of particular kinds of plants have that info readily at hand also.

My problem with on-line general data bases (not ITIS, etc) is that I feel that I have to validate each name by checking several sources. I'd love to know exactly what reference was used for the plant's name, how recently that reference was accessed and the synonyms attached to the plant. With the ever-increasing use of DNA analyses rather than morphology to separate or combine genera, and even families, names are changing at a brisk pace.

Of course, this doesn't work well with cultivars because not all cultivars are registered with the ICRAs, and some putative cultivars really aren't - they're marketed by growers to look as if the plant was a cultivar - in effect making a new "common name". But that's for another rant...

No, Dave, I'm a retired Mnneapolis, MN bureaucrat! Although I'd like to think I was Charles Darwin in a previous life.

Just happen to love gardening, plants and research, and have been doing it a long time. Most recently, as a master gardener in Brazoria County, Tx I've edited the newsletter, answer the hot-line, designed a public garden for the library, and continue to work on a thankless-never-seems-to-be-completed relational plant database. With those tasks, and a Faustian penchant for wanting to know everything, I've done a lot of self-directed research. All that is just a pleasant way of saying I'm a plant/naturalist snoop.